|
|
Op 13/04/2021 om 21:00 schreef Bald Eagle:
> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>
>> I changed every <0.000, 0.000, 0.000> to <0.004, 0.004, 0.004> (which
>> corresponds to 1/256)
>
> Thank you, Sir.
>
> I am playing a bit with the macro thing and a simple demo scene, and I will post
> both as soon as it's far enough along to warrant some code pong.
>
Good! I think the macro suggestion is the way to go. Might become quite
complex...
> Perhaps you can guide me a bit in crafting a prototype texture since you're
> likely better/more knowledgeable than I. After briefly going through your code,
> I like what I see so far.
> Some small observations:
> You have some #declares in your macros where you should probably use #locals.
> Maybe use some underscores or GraniteInc_ prefixes to construct a unique
> namespace that won't potentially clash with a user's scene file declares.
>
I shall look into that.
> I'm using the "Mahogany (sp) granite - polished surface" as a starting point,
> and I'm noticing a few things:
>
> we have diffuse 0.6 specular 0.9
> Which adds up to over 1.0 Is this proper? Should the sum never exceed unity?
>
I did not go too deep into the original code, but you are right I think;
I need to look up my notes on this. There is also a comment in one of
the Clipka Voodoo's which talks about diffuse values in a srgb
environment...
> (it would be nice if we had some dot-notation type stuff to work with, but it
> would be a CSG-tree type nightmare)
>
> This is a layered texture, but both texture have finish blocks. Should there
> only be a single finish block for the whole object?
Something I wondered about too. My gut feeling is that only one finish
should be used.
> What about sslt and interior {ior} ?
I don't think that those are to be used with granites. It would not add
anything imo.
> There is also the issue of scale.
> "The granite patterns have been scaled in such a way that, when applied to a
> unit-sized POV-Ray object, they correspond most closely to the real world
> examples from which they have been modeled. (sp)"
>
> and for sslt we have:
> "The mm_per_unit algorithm is designed to give realistic results at a scale of
> 10 mm per POV-Ray unit by default"
>
> So we may have some things to think about there, so that everything is playing
> together in harmony, without too much mucking about by inexperienced users.
>
Indeed. Note however that the scale of the texture is rather arbitrary
and open to change by the user. I felt I had to provide something at
least visually "correct".
>
> With more complex textures using ior, sslt, and layered textures, should we have
> a full texture_map mechanism, or material_map rather than color_map?
>
Maybe, and depending on "complexity". Personally, I would prefer the
texture_map/material_map structure indeed.
>
> Thanks! :)
>
<grin>
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|